BY JOHN K. WILSON
Cairn University has announced the elimination of the School of Social Work, prompting the following letter from the National Association of Social Workers:
The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) and its Pennsylvania Chapter have grave concerns about Cairn University’s sudden dismantling of its social work program because of University President Todd Williams’ stance on the “social and cultural agenda” promoted by the social work profession, including LGBTQ+ inclusivity. We support the Cairn faculty, students, staff, and alumni who were hurt by this decision.
This decision is the result of failed executive leadership at the University, and as such must be retracted immediately for the good of the institution and the community. “If the announced Cairn University decision stands, Cairn has failed its students, the social work community, and residents of the communities that depend on Cairn’s social work graduates to serve their communities,” NASW CEO Angelo McClain, PhD, LICSW, said. “Given COVID and recent demands for more social workers in healthcare, schools, mental health and social services, this failure comes at a time when the need for social work services is greater than ever. NASW calls on Cairn University’s executive leadership to rescind this decision and offers its assistance in finding alternatives to addressing concerns.”
Last week, Cairn University, a small private Christian college located near Philadelphia, abruptly announced that it is closing its School of Social Work effective immediately. If you visit Cairn University’s website now, you will find little evidence that the School of Social Work ever existed. There’s no mention of the 56-year history of the social work program or its status as the first Bible college to offer a BSW degree. There’s no bragging about the students or faculty, nor info about the school’s alumni – many of whom have gone on to be national and international leaders in social work. Instead, all you will find is a 404 error message: page not found.
The Cairn School of Social Work was doing well. It had recently been reaccredited for eight years by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), and had met a milestone for starting a new master’s program. So why is it now closing and being completely erased?
The stated rationale by the University President for the closure was in response to an initial draft of new accreditation guidelines published by the CSWE. According to the announcement email sent from President Williams to the students and alumni, the decision is based on “significant changes” in the draft that “embraces a social and cultural agenda that now includes the acceptance of a view of human sexuality, gender identity, and gender expression that is inconsistent with the University’s biblical position on human sexuality” and is “built upon a set of critical theory and intersectionality assumptions and values inconsistent with our biblical view of humanity, human nature, and the world.”
Considering that a side-by-side comparison of the current and proposed CSWE standards finds almost no changes in the language on sexual orientation or gender identity that President Williams mentions, and Williams’ vague references to intersectionality and “critical theory,” it is unclear the degree to which this decision was also based on the inclusive, explicitly anti-racist language added throughout the document.
University President Todd Williams and his Board of Trustees made the decision in a closed-door meeting. There was no discussion, no opportunity for community or even internal comment, no chance for the School of Social Work to make the case for itself to continue. To our knowledge, the decision was made without Todd Williams or the Board of Trustees reaching out to the CSWE for clarification on the language that concerned them.
In today’s world of competing crises, the demand for trained, professional social workers has never been higher. In light of this, NASW and its Pennsylvania Chapter take issue with this decision and its impact on students, faculty, and staff. The stated rationale is even more concerning, as it appears to have been a reactionary, impulse decision from President Williams rejecting LGBTQ+-inclusive and anti-racist language in a draft document. The School has successfully integrated its Biblical teachings with social work’s diversity and anti-discrimination focus for more than 50 years, and that would have continued under the new CSWE standards were they to become final. However, President Todd Williams allowed his own snap judgement to supersede what is in the best interest of the University, the students, and the communities that have been helped by the graduates of the social work program.
This decision must not stand and is the result of failed executive leadership at the university. As MSW student Karissa Forino stated, “I’m standing up now because the very training I received at Cairn University taught me I cannot ignore this act of injustice.” In an effort to amplify the voices of those most impacted, a few additional statements are included below:
- “The circumstances surrounding the end of the program leave me to question the hearts of those in authority at Cairn. Their stance on the LGBTQ+ feels like they are avoiding the real-life issues surrounding that community. Jesus calls Christians to serve, and it is shocking they would take out a program so dedicated to the service of others.”–Julie Swanson, MSW student
- “We fight social injustice and oppression outside the walls of Cairn as Christian social workers, and for Cairn to become the oppressor [through President Williams’ actions] is incredibly heartbreaking.”–Anonymous BSW student
- “Being a student of color, I’ve often had to push for changes in areas of diversity and representation. The School of Social Work is one if the few areas at Cairn I felt worked proactively on these issues and hoped to see this expand. Unfortunately, with the closing of the School of Social Work, I feel I am watching it diminish.”–Simone Wesley, education student
- “This news is incredibly embarrassing and disappointing. To turn your backs on a 50+-year-old program with professors, staff, and students that were historically mainly BIPOC, is telling the LGBTQA+ and BIPOC community that their voices and experiences don’t matter.”–Alexandra De Leo, LMSW, Cairn alumni
NASW and its Pennsylvania Chapter demand University President Todd Williams and the Board of Trustees immediately restore the School of Social Work, including retaining or reinstating the School’s faculty, and acknowledge the damage done to the University and its students. Additionally, any students who are forced to or who choose to transfer as a result of this decision should be partially reimbursed for tuition and expenses as restitution for the harm caused.
“Social workers play a vital role in making life better for others and are essential to the health and well-being of our communities,” said NASW-PA’s Executive Director Johanna Byrd, ACSW, CAE, IOM. “Any decision to close a social work program should be done inclusive of stakeholder input and after making every attempt to resolve conflicts. The capricious nature of this decision by President Williams displays an unconscionable lack of concern for the harmful impact to the students and the surrounding community.”
On June 3, Cairn issued a statement in response:
At its May 24 meeting, the Cairn University Board of Trustees approved a recommendation to close the School of Social Work made by the University administration effective fall 2021. University notified to CSWE its intention to withdraw from accreditation and has begun the process of planning for this transition according to CSWE procedures and protocols
This decision was not arrived at hastily, nor was it based upon any single issue. Other institutions of higher learning have faced difficult decisions regarding enrollment and financial challenges and other strategic and missional concerns, which have led to the closure of programs. Cairn University is no exception to this reality and is committed to addressing these challenges with the best stewardship of its resources in view.
The decision regarding social work at Cairn was based upon an analysis of the following:
-
Enrollment, including enrollment trends and trajectories
-
Costs associated with the program, particularly those prescribed by The Council for Social Work Education (CSWE) regarding faculty-to-student ratios
-
Compatibility with the CSWE values and purposes as well as explicit curricular requirements given the institution’s mission and distinctives
It seems disingenuous for Cairn to claim that economic factors were a primary motivation for suddenly ending the program. There is no sign that Cairn made any effort to speak with faculty and discuss ways to address any potential issues about enrollment and costs. The failure to consult with any faculty before eliminating the program is a direct violation of shared governance and AAUP standards for program discontinuance.
President Williams had already admitted that his ideological opposition to a draft accreditation proposal motivated the shutdown, because it “embraces a social and cultural agenda that now includes the acceptance of a view of human sexuality, gender identity, and gender expression that is inconsistent with the University’s biblical position on human sexuality” and is “built upon a set of critical theory and intersectionality assumptions and values inconsistent with our biblical view of humanity, human nature, and the world.”
The only real question here is, was this a racist opposition to “intersectionality” and analysis of racism, or was it a homophobic objection to the obligation of social workers to deal humanely with GLBTQ clients? We can’t say exactly which right-wing ideology motivated shutting down the school of social work, and but we can condemn this attack on academic freedom regardless of whether race or sexuality motivated the decision. Real universities do not banish program in a fit of anger at a discipline expressing values the president disagrees with. The suppression of academic freedom at Cairn is a reminder that conservative Christian cancel culture is a powerful force within higher education, and we must condemn the arbitrary use of power to silence an entire program.
I strongly disagree with the idea that this was a case of “cancel culture”, not even close. We are becoming accustomed to using it just for about anything that is terminated. Big mistake that this blog makes. Let’s get a common definition going here. Cancel culture isn’t just anything that is dropped or ended. It is or should be a term of art.
Cancel culture is a form of punishment towards an individual or a group for speaking and expressing what are considered controversial views in a venue where they were invited to do so. The punishment in this case being from outside forces that through intimidation? protest, and sometimes, but not always, through violence gets the venue owners to “cancel” the event. It is also being “canceled” when you express what are considered controversial views by an employer even though you did so away from work.
Does a university that drops a department engaging in “cancel culture”?
No, of course not.
Any academic of higher learning has the right to determine its curriculum and academic policies. In this case it seems to be several factors based on your writing. You say it was the boogeyman of “right wing” ideology. Ok let’s say that it was. It isn’t cancel culture. The college may have a particular view point on the social/political issues of the day from a religious tradition. They want that particular view point taught to their students. That is their academic mission and they felt that the accreditation proposal interfered with it.
Even if you reject all of the above explanations the fact is an academic institution that does so for those reasons isn’t “punishing” or inflicting negative consequences on anyone for any views they expressed. It’s horrible for those who were in the program and wanted to pursue it but this seems to be happening in other schools. In the humanities we are seeing whole philosophy, history, and classics departments being cut. Are they canceling?
You obviously have the contrary “Leftwing” ideology and really that’s what’s controlling the narrative here. That’s fine you got a strong point of view like all of us but that is apparent in what is concluded as cancel culture.
By your definition, it is cancel culture if a group (such as a program) is punished for expressing controversial views (such as the views about gender and race encouraged by a social work group). That’s exactly what happened here. You say a college has the “right” to ban programs based on their viewpoint. But don’t all private employers (including those condemned for engaging in cancel culture) have such a right? In fact, the principles of academic freedom impose special limitations on colleges to protect free expression, so we should denounce colleges in particular when they engage in cancel culture. Of course, most program elimination is done for economic reasons, not ideology, and therefore it isn’t cancel culture. But when a president announces ideological reasons for program elimination, then it is cancel culture.
Again I disagree. My definition was more robust then simply punishment. It included external forces that seek to put pressure on a venue that invited the speaker(s) but later retracted due to intimidation, possibly even physically. I also include the phrase “negative consequences” because may punishment may carry the wrong idea but I roughly use them with the same meaning.
So why isnt your case not cancel culture according my the view I laid out? Because a college department isn’t being “invited” on campus in any ordinary sense of the word. It is part of the academic structure that institutions can and do either restructure or eliminate for any reason whatsoever/ If a college has a religious moral pov and they want to guard that in their curriculum its not a disinvitation and therefore a form of punishment to the students or faculty. There were no external forces to the college. The department is part of the college. In contrast, a speaker is invited to the venue on the college ant the college’s permission at some level. The speaker has the right granted to it to speak to those who extended the invitation. If however the invitation is rescinded, which of course it has the right to do, because of ideological grounds that is the result of external forces using intimidation like tactics then thats what is cancel culture. It is cancel culture because while the venue certainly has the right to do so of course they did so based on a capitulation to those outside forces that to use negative rhetoric through protest sometimes unlawfully.
I should be clear in what I meant in talking about rights. Everyone has the right to invite and dis invite but the college was only exercising it’s rights without external forces. It was based on their own internal decision making. That was my point. So yes a private employer could do so and that could be a case of cancel culture as well but I admit those can be a bit of a grey area in determining it since that’s a different environment altogether than a college.
The principles of academic freedom impose no limitations on what a kind of curriculum a college designs otherwise that no longer becomes freedom but a kind of tyranny on that college.
So ideological reasons are necessary but not a sufficient reason for something to be classified as a cancel culture. Do you think the case of Gina Carano was a case of cancel culture?
Mr. Wilson, I hope an investigative journalist takes up this “case” and digs deep. Was the closing motivated by money, i.e. some donor who really did not like what was being taught at the School of Social Work? Inquiry is needed, for sure. It seems crazy that the page for the school has simply been “erased” — that is the most worrisome part of the whole article. Who did the erasing and why?